Jaison Chacko and Sheeba Chacko v. State of Kerala

``` CRL.MC NO. 11026 OF 2024 ``` ``` 1 2025:KER:25035 ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## `IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRANTHURSDAY, THE 20[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 29TH PHALGUNA, 1946 ``` ## `CRL.MC NO. 11026 OF 2024` ``` CRIME NO.1153/2019 OF MANNANCHERRY POLICE STATION, ``` ``` Alappuzha ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 07.11.2024 IN CC NO.2025 OF 2022 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - I, ALAPPUZHA ``` ## `PETITIONER/ACCUSED:` ``` 1JAISON CHACKO AGED 36 YEARS S/O P.M.CHACKO, PONGANATHADAM, AMMANCHERY, AMALAGIRI P.O. PERUMBAIKAD VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM., PIN - 686560 2SHEEBA CHACKO AGED 56 YEARS W/O P.M.CHACKO, PONGANATHADAM, AMMANCHERY, AMALAGIRI P.O. PERUMBAIKAD VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM., PIN - 686560 ``` ``` BY ADV PRABHA JOSE ``` ## `RESPONDENT/STATE, INVESTIGATING OFFICER AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:` - `1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031` - `2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER` ``` 2025:KER:25035 ``` Crl.M.C.No.11026 of 2024 :2: **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` MANNANCHERY POLICE STATION, ALAPUZHA, PIN - 688538 ``` - `3 TEZ THOMAS D/O K.M.THOMAS, AMBALAKANDATHIL HOUSE, KALAVOOR P.O., KALAVOOR VILLAGE, ALAPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688522` ``` BY ADV C.V.MANUVILSAN SRI. E.C. BINEESH (PP) ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` 2025:KER:25035 ``` Crl.M.C.No.11026 of 2024 :3: **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`C.JAYACHANDRAN, J.`** ``` ------------------------------------ ``` ## **`Crl.M.C.No.11026 of 2024`** ``` ------------------------------------ Dated this the 20[th]day of March, 2025 ``` ## **O R D E R** ## **`B.S.Joshi and Others v. State of Haryana and`** ``` another [(2003) 4 SCC 675] held that the offence under Section 498A can be quashed by the High Court exercising its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C (now Section 528 of BNSS, 2023), though such offence is not compoundable under Section 320. Relying onState of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy [(1977) 2 SCC 699], a two Judges Bench inB.S. Joshi (Supra) held that ends of justice are higher than ends of mere law, though justice has got to be administered according to laws made by legislature. The fact that there is no reasonable likelihood of conviction, in the wake of settlement between the parties, was taken stock of. The following findings in B.S.Joshi (supra) are relevant and extracted here ``` ``` 2025:KER:25035 ``` Crl.M.C.No.11026 of 2024 :4: **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## `below:` ``` “What would happen to the trial of the case where the wife does not support the imputations made in the FIR of the type in question. As earlier noticed, now she has filed an affidavit that the FIR was registered at her instance due to temperamental differences and implied imputations. There may be many reasons for not supporting the imputations. It may be either for the reason that she has resolved disputes with her husband and his other family members and as a result thereof she has again started living with her husband, with whom she earlier had differences or she has willingly parted company and is living happily on her own or has married someone else on the earlier marriage having been dissolved by divorce on consent of parties or fails to support the prosecution on some other similar grounds. In such eventuality, there would almost be no chance of conviction. Would it then be proper to decline to exercise power of quashing on the ground that it would be permitting the parties to compound non-compoundable offences? The ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:25035 ``` Crl.M.C.No.11026 of 2024 :5: ``` answer clearly has to be in the "negative". It would, however, be a different matter if the High Court on facts declines the prayer for quashing for any valid reasons including lack of bona fides.” ``` ``` 2. The dictum laid down inB.S.Joshi (supra) was doubted along with that laid down in other cases and referred to and considered by a three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another[(2012) 10 SCC 303]. B.S.Joshi (supra), along with other cases, were confirmed by the Supreme Court. It is relevant to note that the subject matter in B.S.Joshi (supra) was specifically with reference to the offences under Section 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. ``` ``` 3. In the facts at hand, petitioners are the accused persons in Crime No.1153/2019 of Mannanchery Police Station, Alappuzha, now pending as C.C.No.2025/2022 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:25035 ``` Crl.M.C.No.11026 of 2024 :6: ``` Alappuzha. The offences alleged are under Sections 498A, 323 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners seek quashment of entire proceedings in the above Calendar Case, on the strength of the settlement arrived at by and between the parties. ``` ``` 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the records. ``` ``` 5. When this Crl.M.C was moved, this Court directed to record the statement of the defacto complainant. The said direction was complied and the statement was handed over. On perusal of the same, it is clear that the issues between the petitioners and the defacto complainant are settled and that the marriage between the defacto complainant and the 1[st] petitioner has been dissolved by way of mutual divorce. Moreover, the defacto complainant has received an equivalent amount for her gold ornaments from the petitioners, wherefore, she has no ``` ``` 2025:KER:25035 ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** Crl.M.C.No.11026 of 2024 :7: ``` objection in quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioners. That apart, it is noticed that, along with this Crl.M.C, an affidavit has been sworn to by the defacto complainant (3[rd] respondent herein) as Annexure-A4, wherein she would unequivocally state that the disputes have been settled in Court mediation and that the case against the petitioners stemmed from some misunderstanding. The defacto complainant would also swear that she has no intention to further prosecute the case and that she has no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioners. The affidavit is sworn to on her own volition, without any compulsion, whatsoever. This Court has also perused Annexure-A3 settlement agreement executed between the 1[st] petitioner and the defacto complainant, wherein the amicable settlement between the parties, is seen vouched. This Court is therefore convinced that the settlement arrived at is genuine and ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:25035 ``` Crl.M.C.No.11026 of 2024 :8: ``` bonafide. ``` ``` 6. In the light of the above referred facts, this Court is of the opinion that the necessary parameters, as culled out in B.S.Joshi (supra) and Gian Singh (Supra), are fully satisfied. This court is convinced that further proceedings against the petitioners will be a futile exercise, inasmuch as the disputes have already been settled. There is little possibility of any conviction in the crime. Dehors the settlement arrived at by and between the parties, if they are compelled to face the criminal proceedings, the same, in the estimation of this Court, will amount to abuse of process of Court. The quashment sought for would secure the ends of justice. This Court also notice that the offence under Section 323 is compoundable, which is all the more a reason to accept the compromise between the parties. ``` ``` In the circumstances, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:25035 ``` Crl.M.C.No.11026 of 2024 :9: ``` Annexure-A1 FIR in Crime No.1153/2019, Annexure-A2 Final Report and all further proceedings in C.C.No.2025/2022 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Alappuzha, are hereby quashed. ``` Sd/- **C. JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE.** ska ``` 2025:KER:25035 ``` Crl.M.C.No.11026 of 2024 :10: **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## `APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 11026/2024` ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES ``` ``` Annexure A1CERTIFIED COPY OF F.I.R. ALONG WITH FIS DATED 01/11/2019 JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE’S COURT-II, ALAPPUZHA. Annexure A2CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT NO. 63/2020 DATED 31-12-2019 BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE'S COURT-II, ALAPPUZHA Annexure A3THE TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE 1ST PETITIONER AND THE 3RD RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT IN MAT APPEAL NO.723/2023 AND MAT. APEAL NO.754/2023 DATED 12/04/2024. Annexure A4THE TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 19/09/2024 ```